O'Gorman Aileen, Quigley Eoghan, Zobel Frank, Moore Kerri
School of Applied Social Sciences, University College Dublin, Ireland.
Policy, Evaluation and Content Coordination Unit, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal.
Int J Drug Policy. 2014 Sep;25(5):1001-8. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.04.020. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
In recent decades a range of advocacy organisations have emerged on the drugs policy landscape seeking to shape the development of policy at national and international levels. This development has been facilitated by the expansion of 'democratic spaces' for civil society participation in governance fora at national and supranational level. However, little is known about these policy actors - their aims, scope, organisational structure, or the purpose of their engagement.
Drug policy advocacy organisations were defined as organisations with a clearly stated aim to influence policy and which were based in Europe. Data on these organisations was collected through a systematic tri-lingual (English, French and Spanish) Internet search, supplemented by information provided by national agencies in the 28 EU member states, Norway and Turkey. In order to differentiate between the diverse range of activities, strategies and standpoints of these groups, information from the websites was used to categorise the organisations by their scope of operation, advocacy tools and policy constituencies; and by three key typologies - the type of advocacy they engaged in, their organisational type, and their advocacy objectives and orientation.
The study identified over two hundred EU-based advocacy organisations (N=218) which included civil society associations, NGOs, and large-scale alliances and coalitions, operating at local, national and European levels. Three forms of advocacy emerged from the data analysis - peer, professional and public policy. These groups focused their campaigns on practice development (harm reduction or abstinence) and legislative reform (reducing or strengthening drug controls).
The findings from this study provide a nuanced profile of civil society advocacy as a policy community in the drugs field; their legitimacy to represent cases, causes, social values and ideals; and their focus on both insider and outsider strategies to achieve their goals. The level of convergence and divergence in Europe in relation to policy positions on service provision ethos and drug control regulation is indicated.
近几十年来，一系列倡导组织出现在毒品政策领域，试图在国家和国际层面塑造政策发展。“民主空间”的扩大促进了这一发展，使公民社会能够参与国家和超国家层面的治理论坛。然而，对于这些政策行为体——它们的目标、范围、组织结构或参与目的，我们知之甚少。
毒品政策倡导组织被定义为目标明确旨在影响政策且总部位于欧洲的组织。通过系统的三语言（英语、法语和西班牙语）互联网搜索收集这些组织的数据，并辅以欧盟28个成员国、挪威和土耳其的国家机构提供的信息。为了区分这些团体的各种活动、策略和立场，利用网站信息按其运营范围、倡导工具和政策支持者对组织进行分类；并按三种关键类型——它们所从事的倡导类型、组织类型以及倡导目标和方向进行分类。
该研究确定了200多个总部位于欧盟的倡导组织（N = 218），其中包括民间社会协会、非政府组织以及地方、国家和欧洲层面的大型联盟和联合体。数据分析得出三种倡导形式——同行倡导、专业倡导和公共政策倡导。这些团体将其活动重点放在实践发展（减少伤害或禁欲）和立法改革（减少或加强毒品管制）上。
本研究结果提供了一个细致入微的民间社会倡导概况，作为毒品领域的一个政策群体；它们代表案例、事业、社会价值观和理想的合法性；以及它们对实现目标的内部和外部策略的关注。研究还指出了欧洲在服务提供理念和毒品管制法规政策立场方面的趋同和分歧程度。
